Abstract: Our understanding of climate impacts and adaptations on crop growth and productivity can be accelerated by analyzing historical data over the past few decades. We used crop trial and climate data from 1981 to 2009 at 34 national agro-meteorological stations in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain (HHHP) of China to investigate the impacts of climate factors during different growth stages on the growth and yields of winter wheat, accounting for the adaptations such as shifts in sowing dates, cultivars, and agronomic management. Maximum (T-max) and minimum temperature (T-min) during the growth period of winter wheat increased significantly, by 0.4 and 0.6 degrees C/decade, respectively, from 1981 to 2009, while solar radiation decreased significantly by 0.2 MJ/m(2)/day and precipitation did not change significantly. The trends in climate shifted wheat phenology significantly at 21 stations and affected wheat yields significantly at five stations. The impacts of T-max and T-min differed in different growth stages of winter wheat. Across the stations, during 1981-2009, wheat yields increased on average by 14.5% with increasing trends in T-min over the whole growth period, which reduced frost damage, however, decreased by 3.0% with the decreasing trends in solar radiation. Trends in Tmax and precipitation had comparatively smaller impacts on wheat yields. From 1981 to 2009, climate trends were associated with a <= 30% (or <= 1.0% per year) wheat yield increase at 23 stations in eastern and southern parts of HHHP; however with a <= 30% (or <= 1.0% per year) reduction at 11 other stations, mainly in western part of HHHP. We also found that wheat reproductive growth duration increased due to shifts in cultivars and flowering date, and the duration was significantly and positively correlated with wheat yield. This study highlights the different impacts of T-max and T-min in different growth stages of winter wheat, as well as the importance of management (e.g. shift of sowing date) and cultivars shift in adapting to climate change in the major wheat production region. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract: Highlights
• 14 criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk • Working with stakeholders to identify timing of risks is key to risk assessments. • Multiple methods needed to critically assess the use of climate model output • Increasing transparency and inter-comparability needed in risk assessments
Abstract
Crop models are used for an increasingly broad range of applications, with a commensurate proliferation of methods. Careful framing of research questions and development of targeted and appropriate methods are therefore increasingly important. In conjunction with the other authors in this special issue, we have developed a set of criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk. Our analysis drew on the other papers in this special issue, and on our experience in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 and the MACSUR, AgMIP and ISIMIP projects. The criteria were used to assess how improvements could be made to the framing of climate change risks, and to outline the good practice and new developments that are needed to improve risk assessment. Key areas of good practice include: i. the development, running and documentation of crop models, with attention given to issues of spatial scale and complexity; ii. the methods used to form crop-climate ensembles, which can be based on model skill and/or spread; iii. the methods used to assess adaptation, which need broadening to account for technological development and to reflect the full range options available. The analysis highlights the limitations of focussing only on projections of future impacts and adaptation options using pre-determined time slices. Whilst this long-standing approach may remain an essential component of risk assessments, we identify three further key components: 1. Working with stakeholders to identify the timing of risks. What are the key vulnerabilities of food systems and what does crop-climate modelling tell us about when those systems are at risk? 2. Use of multiple methods that critically assess the use of climate model output and avoid any presumption that analyses should begin and end with gridded output. 3. Increasing transparency and inter-comparability in risk assessments. Whilst studies frequently produce ranges that quantify uncertainty, the assumptions underlying these ranges are not always clear. We suggest that the contingency of results upon assumptions is made explicit via a common uncertainty reporting format; and/or that studies are assessed against a set of criteria, such as those presented in this paper.

Abstract: Crop growth simulation models can differ greatly in their treatment of key processes and hence in their response to environmental conditions. Here, we used an ensemble of 26 process-based wheat models applied at sites across a European transect to compare their sensitivity to changes in temperature (-2 to +9 degrees C) and precipitation (-50 to +50%). Model results were analysed by plotting them as impact response surfaces (IRSs), classifying the IRS patterns of individual model simulations, describing these classes and analysing factors that may explain the major differences in model responses. The model ensemble was used to simulate yields of winter and spring wheat at four sites in Finland, Germany and Spain. Results were plotted as IRSs that show changes in yields relative to the baseline with respect to temperature and precipitation. IRSs of 30-year means and selected extreme years were classified using two approaches describing their pattern. The expert diagnostic approach (EDA) combines two aspects of IRS patterns: location of the maximum yield (nine classes) and strength of the yield response with respect to climate (four classes), resulting in a total of 36 combined classes defined using criteria pre-specified by experts. The statistical diagnostic approach (SDA) groups IRSs by comparing their pattern and magnitude, without attempting to interpret these features. It applies a hierarchical clustering method, grouping response patterns using a distance metric that combines the spatial correlation and Euclidian distance between IRS pairs. The two approaches were used to investigate whether different patterns of yield response could be related to different properties of the crop models, specifically their genealogy, calibration and process description. Although no single model property across a large model ensemble was found to explain the integrated yield response to temperature and precipitation perturbations, the application of the EDA and SDA approaches revealed their capability to distinguish: (i) stronger yield responses to precipitation for winter wheat than spring wheat; (ii) differing strengths of response to climate changes for years with anomalous weather conditions compared to period-average conditions; (iii) the influence of site conditions on yield patterns; (iv) similarities in IRS patterns among models with related genealogy; (v) similarities in IRS patterns for models with simpler process descriptions of root growth and water uptake compared to those with more complex descriptions; and (vi) a closer correspondence of IRS patterns in models using partitioning schemes to represent yield formation than in those using a harvest index. Such results can inform future crop modelling studies that seek to exploit the diversity of multi-model ensembles, by distinguishing ensemble members that span a wide range of responses as well as those that display implausible behaviour or strong mutual similarities.